Talk:Nickola Shreli

PROD doesn't mean AFD

Dear Iryna, please read Wikipedia:PROD:

PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag. The first objection kills the PROD.

I already contested the PROD with my edit, the article can easily go to AFD, but that doesn't mean you should edit-war me. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As per my response to AlbertBikaj, "The issue isn't that of whether he exists or not. He would have to qualify as being notable by means of verifiable independent secondary sources (not IMDB or the blog zine you've referenced). As it stands, it appears that he has had a couple of small roles and has worked as an extra in a few roles. A Wikipedia biography is not warranted, particularly when it seems evident that it is being used as promotional material/publicity. Please see the following policies and guidelines: Basic criteria for notability, general notability guideline, self published sources,sources that are usually not reliable."

Unless WP:V secondary sources can be produced, I fail to see that there is any argument for keeping the page. Having run a google search before I formed an opinion on his notability, I found nothing other than commercial blogs and zines carrying any interviews or info on him. By no means do such zines and self-published sources qualify him for inclusion. I see no argument for an AfD. The only interest anyone seems to have in him appears to be a POV push because of his Albanian ancestry. Please don't confuse national pride with notability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the PROD is a sticky. Until such a time as verifiable source is produced, it does not get removed. I'm not trying to be difficult on this subject. If you can find a verifiable source, you are welcome to remove the tag. If not, it must remain in place for the 7 days stipulated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, please don't rush attributing me motives: I contested the PROD because I am not convinced that the blog you mentioned is the only source. There are others. I am not an expert in the field and notability is not an easy thing to settle, in any field. The policy above I brought shows how you have misinterpreted the PROD policy and an AFD is warranted. Shreli may very well fail the AFD, but that doesn't mean the PROD should pacifically bring to deletion when someone contests it: it's not supposed to do that. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In anticipation of the AfD, I broguht these more sources: Not sure if they will suffice, but I did my due diligence.

• Splash magazine
• Regard magazine
• Prishtina press
• Michigan live

Deleting the IMDB link (like you did) is not the best way of improving an article. Best! --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that one the areas Perkohesisht ai i vjetri works in is article rescue, I'd take his/her direction as being the best to follow. It's unlikely that notability will be able to be substantiated as the sources suggested (above) don't stand on their own merit. They are, however, a start on establishing notability by demonstrating that Shreli is possibly notable enough to generate interest in him outside of self promotion. It won't hurt to bring this to the table at an AfD.

Don't concern yourself too much with grammatical errors if English isn't your first language as it's more important to find substance for notability. There are plenty of people who don't have any qualms about copyediting so long as the material is there. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the sources found seem to be reliable sources. Google search for his name and the name of any of the films he is notable for being in, and additional results appear to sort through. No need to have the prod on the article now, so I removed it. Dream Focus 08:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still see it as teetering on the brink, but I'll accept that it just squeezes through the notability criteria. Hopefully, once the films in pre-production are released there'll be some more substantial sources just to add some weight. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

about the notability tag at the top of the article

There are reliable sources giving ample coverage of the person already, as pointed out in the most recent AFD. These are in the article already. Dream Focus 05:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've checked through all of the references and they don't meet with WP:RS, nor does the actor meet with WP:ENTERTAINER. All that has been established is that he exists and has been in a few films. I'm sure I don't need to point out WP:PLUG to you, but I'm compelled to as I don't see that this actor is more significant that thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of other actors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't consider Chicago Sun-Times to be a reliable source? He doesn't have to be more significant than others. Wikipedia does not have a limit on space, so no competition here. If reliable sources give him significant coverage, he passes the General Notability Guideline, so doesn't need to also pass any subject specific guideline. Dream Focus 17:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, we both know we could argue over this until the cows come home. For every RS argument you produce, I could produce a NOT to counter it. I'm not actually particularly concerned as to your inclusionist stance as I'm not a die-hard deletionist. My main concerns revolve around BLPVIO and, most particularly, using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. I honestly couldn't be bothered arguing this any further because I'm not here to WP:WIN. If you think WP:ITSIMPORTANT that everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame because they're not someone if they don't have a Wikipedia article about them, by all means remove the template. My personal stance still remains that it's not encyclopaedic. Feel free to develop Wikipedia however you deem to be fit, and I'm not interested in competing for the lamest editor war list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)